If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Just a question. We want to maintain our rights to resist an oppressive government. What good will our AR'S do when you can be targeted by your IP address provided by your post on PP by a predator drone?

Just askin...JD

My point here has been from the beginning that after reading justice Scalia's majority opinion, I think that I have a better historical perspective on the origins of the second amendment and why the founders believed it necessary. After reading that opinion in its entirety, it became pretty clear that the founders feared the power of government and felt that free men should have the ability to defend themselves even against a tyrannical government. I don't personally think that our current government is tyrannical, nor would I ever want to be in the position of taking up arms in that way, but the point is that Scalia feels that the right of self defense is a "human" right, not something that a legitimate government can take away. The problem with not making the argument is that one then is basically saying that self defense is NOT a right, and it is reasonable for the citizenry to allow the government to remove one's means of self defense. It seems to me that the argument that Justice Scalia was making was that a defenseless citizenry invites a tyrannical government.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

The constitution is always up for interpertation...and it depends on who is interperting it...keep that in mine. My point is I don't want to lose my guns and I want to keep that right. However, I believe that if we hold true to the 2nd amendment guarantees us that right, one day in our lifetime, it will fail us, because we are out numbered by the folks that don't want to have guns.

So if we could de-couple hunting guns from guns in general...I think we have a better chance of keeping those guns in the long run.

Just like you thought Mickey Moose could beat Obama, you saw that he couldn't because the country has moved more to the center.

I'm not a lefty when it comes to guns, what I am is a realist and me personally would give up a gun right to have full right to my hunting rifles.

No need to argue with me...I understand your postion and know that you believe if any rights get taken away you lose the battle. That is one way to look at it, but all I'm saying is that I think that position will lose it for all of us in time.

Good God man, you have NO clue what the second amendment stands for. Thinking like this is precisely what will lead to it's demise. PLEASE read Scalia's opinion. Then read it again. And again until you start to understand it.

That would depend on if they were flying right to left or left to right.

As I recall he flew directly at me for a while, then he began to veer to the right. Probably what made him an easy target
for a left centered gun. Metaphorically speaking of course...He will be tasty however. JD

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

Ok...keep looking at it through rose colored glasses. But tell me, wouldn't it be smarter just to enjoy our guns and use them as the tool they were designed for without making mockery with them? Oh no...I used a $5 word. Just think about it....enjoy your guns and keep it to yourself....I'm sure their is a mom at the your children's school that would be very alarmed to hear that your young children or handling firearms especially assault rifles.

When I lived in NJ....I found out that one my sons friends could not come to my house because we had guns in the house, albeit they were in a safe. So encouraging the bragging of shouting assault rifles with children gets parents nervous.

Kind of like our dog trials...we don't push them on the folks that view the useless killing of ducks. So out of sight out of mind and no one complains. But if we did, it would just be a matter of time and we would be using the rubber ducks like in Canada

Mike, if your NJ friends wouldn't let their kids come to your house because you were a banker would you have quit your job?
As hpl has pointed out numerous times read Scalias opinion
Better yet read some of the writings of the founding fathers on their intent and meaning of the 2nd A

As for your analogy on FTs Id prefer that we not hide from the antis. They dont have to hide their hobbies from me so why should I hide mine from them. Hiding kind of gives off an air of your ashamed of what youre doing; or that what youre doing is inherently wrong. Additionally Canada doesnt use rubber ducks they use real ducks: they just dont have flyers.
Most importantly about your analogy is that the US Constitution guarantees me the right to keep guns so why in the hell should I hide the fact that I am exercising that right

Mike, if your NJ friends wouldn't let their kids come to your house because you were a banker would you have quit your job?
As hpl has pointed out numerous times read Scalias opinion
Better yet read some of the writings of the founding fathers on their intent and meaning of the 2nd A

As for your analogy on FTs Id prefer that we not hide from the antis. They dont have to hide their hobbies from me so why should I hide mine from them. Hiding kind of gives off an air of your ashamed of what youre doing; or that what youre doing is inherently wrong. Additionally Canada doesnt use rubber ducks they use real ducks: they just dont have flyers.
Most importantly about your analogy is that the US Constitution guarantees me the right to keep guns so why in the hell should I hide the fact that I am exercising that right

I know that I keep harping on Justice Scalia's opinion, but it actually made some points that I hadn't really considered before. Foremost among these was that the government doesn't "GIVE" me the right to keep arms. That right is seen as a "human" right tied to the "God given" right of self defense. That might seem a small distinction, but, any right the government "gives" one, the government can easily take away. The Bill of Rights was instituted to a great extent to force the government to acknowledge in writing that its power over the citizenry was limited, and to affirm that certain human rights actually do exist. That seems to me to be a VERY important point.

Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
(John Dewey)

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
(George Washington)

Stevens wrote a dissent, and then Scalia bitch slapped him with this as a going away present:

".....And the Court’s approach intrudes less upon the democratic process because the rights it acknowledges are those established by a constitutional history formed by democratic decisions; and the rights it fails to acknowledge are left to be democratically adopted or rejected by the people, with the assurance that their decision is not subject to judicial revision. JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, on the other hand, deprives the people of that power, since whatever the Constitution and laws may say, the list of protected rights will be whatever courts wish it to be. After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before, post, at 55, and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which “majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way,” post, at 56, but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpation is effected unabashedly, see post, at 53—with “the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,” ibid.—makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark.It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ approach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril."...

I know that I keep harping on Justice Scalia's opinion, but it actually made some points that I hadn't really considered before. Foremost among these was that the government doesn't "GIVE" me the right to keep arms. That right is seen as a "human" right tied to the "God given" right of self defense. That might seem a small distinction, but, any right the government "gives" one, the government can easily take away. The Bill of Rights was instituted to a great extent to force the government to acknowledge in writing that its power over the citizenry was limited, and to affirm that certain human rights actually do exist. That seems to me to be a VERY important point.

Could it be that this is why there's such a concerted push to get God out of our daily lives? If no God, then no God given rights. I think our guns will be taken from us by taxation. How about a safety tax of $1,000 per gun to start?

Could it be that this is why there's such a concerted push to get God out of our daily lives? If no God, then no God given rights. I think our guns will be taken from us by taxation. How about a safety tax of $1,000 per gun to start?

First the gov't would have to prove that I have them....My guess is that they will either tax ammo out of existence or make ammo a hazardous material due to its lead content and either tax it and make it very difficult to obtain

All my Exes live in Texas

Originally Posted by lanse brown

A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"